Opinion
23-11226
07-29-2024
MICHAEL H. HENSLEY, JR., Plaintiff, v. FRASHAUN DARROUGH, Defendant.
Jonathan J.C. Grey, United States District Judge
ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND
CURTIS IVY, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Michael H. Hensley, Jr. filed this pro se prisoner complaint on May 24, 2023. (ECF No. 1). This case was referred to the undersigned for all pretrial matters. (ECF No. 16).
Defendant Frashaun Darrough moved for summary judgment on May 6, 2024. (ECF No. 26). The motion is fully briefed. (ECF Nos. 30, 31). On July 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed a letter stating he “would like to rectify [his] unsigned and unsworn response to the Defendant's motion.” (ECF No. 32). He also stated “[h]ere is a signed paper can this please be added to motion on file.” (ECF No. 32, PageID.147). He did not attach any paper to this letter.
If Plaintiff's intention is merely to sign his response, the Court will consider it signed and directs Defendant to as well. If Plaintiff's intention is to submit a sworn affidavit in support of his response, Plaintiff may submit a signed and sworn affidavit by August 16, 2024. Defendant may file a supplemental reply brief within 14 days of service of the affidavit.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The parties here may object to and seek review of this Order, but are required to file any objections within 14 days of service as provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and Local Rule 72.1(d). A party may not assign as error any defect in this Order to which timely objection was not made. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). Any objections are required to specify the part of the Order to which the party objects and state the basis of the objection. When an objection is filed to a magistrate judge's ruling on a non-dispositive motion, the ruling remains in effect unless it is stayed by the magistrate judge or a district judge. E.D. Mich. Local Rule 72.2.